The term "reboot" needs to be retired

A not so recent phenomenon is the act of rebooting a franchise. Ever since “Batman Begins” was a success, studios have increasingly been rebooting film franchises to introduce to new audiences. The way we defined a reboot and how often we used the word has also changed. At first it seem to make sense, “Batman Begins” and “The Amazing Spider-Man” all being labeled with the term, reboot. Why does that make sense? Well, because those movies are the restart of a preexisting franchise but also is not classified as a remake (which is a whole different thing entirely). “Batman Begins” is just starting a new franchise with the Batman character (it’s not a remake of the 1989 Tim Burton “Batman” film). Somewhere though we seem to lose our basic understanding of what this word actually means. Soon movies like “Robocop”, “A Nightmare on Elm Street” Started being labeled a reboot by countless film journalists and critics (many whom I respect and admire).



Recently I’ve noticed people labeling certain movies that are not reboots with the term, reboot. The latest “Nightmare on Elm Street” for example is simply a remake of the original 1984 Wes Craven film (not a reboot). The new version takes the original film and redoes it. Sure, they may be trying to start another franchise, but it is a remake first and foremost. I would make the same argument with the 2014 “Robocop”. It may have some changes to the story, but it’s the filmmakers are redoing the original 1987 story. The remake is not just taking the character and doing something completely different, it’s the same general story. It seems now the two words are used interchangeably when there is a distinction to be had.